Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

IMO you're missing the point. Accelerating the bulk of the mass of the universe is akin to accelerating a fairly disperse plasma body. You don't have to move planets and suns to accelerate the bulk of the mass, you simply have to accelerate protons and charged helium atoms and "dusty plasma". The rest of the "condensed" mass found in planets and suns will "follow" the gravitational changes caused by the acceleration of the plasma between the objects in space. The "scale of the effect" might be relatively small on a single large physical body, but an acceleration of a whole plasma field will cause the "clumpy" material to follow sooner or later, if only due to the gravitational effects, not to mention EM effects.

This is as quantitative as you can get, eh? Bulk, fairly disperse, the rest of, changes, acceleration, between, scale, relatively small, single, large, whole, and clumpy?

​

Most of us probably learned in fourth or fifth grade that science is done quantitatively, that would be "with numbers" for the language challenged. So not only have you shown that you aren't qualified to understand math at a level necessary to balance your own checkbook, you've shown that you aren't qualified to understand science, in general, at the level of an average ten year old.

The irony of ironies is that fact you folks attempt to eliminate the EM field because it's not an example of "negative pressure", but then you try to use the Casimir effect is an example of 'negative pressure in a vacuum". The whole thing is pure baloney on your part. You can't have it both ways, but you're intent on doing exactly that!

You're lying, again, Michael. Is there something about the strategy of trying to support your argument with lies that you believe will be successful in persuading anyone to accept your crazy crackpot notions? Remember, in over half a decade of your evangelizing, not one single professional scientist has ever been persuaded yet. Do you think someday your argument by lying might actually work?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're lying, again, Michael.

The only liar here is you and you're only lying to yourself GM. Your dark entities are entirely impotent in the lab and your whole argument is founded on a non-sequitur fallacy. Your dark entities aren't real. They don't have any more effect on me than Zeus. No amount of "sky pointing math" is going to make your mythical sky entities real, or make them show up in a lab or have any effect on anything in a controlled experiment. Your entities are mythical. They are not real. EM fields are real. They do real things, like make your car run and make your computer function. Your dark stuff is a figment of your lying imagination.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

A sensible definition for the acceleration might be d²a/dt², which is H²+dH/dt.
That's given by the second of these and I'll leave the calculation of the current value as an exercise for the reader who is more motivated right now than myself.

edit 2: erm, I make that about 3x10^-36/s²?

I think there's an m, or km, gone AWOL ...

 

[edd]

You mean I'm out by a thousand or something, or are you suggesting the dimensions are wrong?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You mean I'm out by a thousand or something, or are you suggesting the dimensions are wrong?

Do you honestly think that they'd forgive my mathematical mistakes as easily as they forgive yours? Hey, we're all human.

 

[edd]

Well one would be a mistake on my part, one wouldn't.

 

[Mister Earl]

Your string analogy doesn't actually apply to "dark energy" however, in fact it puts you in my camp.

That model of mine isn't mean to explain the HOW of dark energy, just its effect. The string is stretching instead of moving along in a cohesive, non-deforming unit. Heck, if Alfrin's paper is what you go by, then the string itself would never stretch.

When you pull on the end of a string, you are pulling on an atom with another atom in your finger. The "cause" of the expansion of material in the fibers of the string is due to the pull of your finger, not "dark energy'.

The string (physical space analogy) is being pulled / stretched apart by dark energy. At local scales, like my example, it stretches at one planck unit per inch of string, an amount impossible to measure in the lab currently. However, due to the string being 13 billion light years long, the cumulative effect of this is that the ends of that string are speeding away from each other at superluminal speeds.

It's a useful analogy in the sense that it "creates the same kind of an effect', but that is exactly the same argument I'm using by suggesting that material *outside* of this physical universe might be attracting material inside this physical universe.

I didn't see that in Alfrin's paper. Is this your own hypothesis, or is it another paper from someone else? Where is this dark universe, and through what dark conduit is it interfacing with ours?

Your analogy and mine are actually the same analogy. Welcome to my world.

I'm not positive on that.

 

[ben m]

I think there's an m, or km, gone AWOL ...

I disagree---the Hubble parameter doesn't have units of length, it's just 1/time. So the time rate of change of the Hubble constant is 1/time^2.

To find the Hubble-flow relative velocity of two particular objects, you take their *distance* D and multiply it by H, that gives you velocity in m/s, and includes the fact that a larger D leads to a larger V (i.e. the distance-redshift relation). It's the same with acceleration---the relative acceleration of two particular objects is dv/dt = D*dH/dt. In units, m/s^2 = m * (1/s^2).

As for the value, on dimensional grounds I'd expect it to be just G*rho, Newton's constant times the dark energy density, so in cgs units

6x10^-8 (cm^3 g^-1 s^-2)* 10^-29 (g cm^-3) = 5x10^-36 s^-2.

Which, unsurprisingly, agrees with edd. (More surprisingly, there's not even a factor of 2 or pi or something. Woo hoo!)

 

[Reality Check]

It's a useful analogy in the sense that it "creates the same kind of an effect', but that is exactly the same argument I'm using by suggesting that material *outside* of this physical universe might be attracting material inside this physical universe.

As you should be aware by now Mister Earl, Michael Mozina has a habit of redefining words to mean what he wants them to mean rather than what they are redefined to mean, e.g. in dictionaries. This is probably because of his ignorance of the subject. An example of this is his persistent delusion that empirical means experiments in labs when observations are included.

In this case "physical universe" is his attempt to say "observable universe". This is not a new idea and definitely not his idea.

ETA
This is a paper that ben m cited a while back
Can We Avoid Dark Energy?

The idea that we live near the center of a large, nonlinear void has attracted attention recently as an alternative to dark energy or modified gravity. We show that an appropriate void profile can fit both the latest cosmic microwave background and supernova data. However, this requires either a fine-tuned primordial spectrum or a Hubble rate so low as to rule these models out. We also show that measurements of the radial baryon acoustic scale can provide very strong constraints. Our results present a serious challenge to void models of acceleration.

 

[edd]

Quite, although there's definitely an issue if something outside your light cone is supposed to be doing something to you.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I disagree---the Hubble parameter doesn't have units of length, it's just 1/time. So the time rate of change of the Hubble constant is 1/time^2.

To find the Hubble-flow relative velocity of two particular objects, you take their *distance* D and multiply it by H, that gives you velocity in m/s, and includes the fact that a larger D leads to a larger V (i.e. the distance-redshift relation). It's the same with acceleration---the relative acceleration of two particular objects is dv/dt = D*dH/dt. In units, m/s^2 = m * (1/s^2).

As for the value, on dimensional grounds I'd expect it to be just G*rho, Newton's constant times the dark energy density, so in cgs units

6x10^-8 (cm^3 g^-1 s^-2)* 10^-29 (g cm^-3) = 5x10^-36 s^-2.

Which, unsurprisingly, agrees with edd. (More surprisingly, there's not even a factor of 2 or pi or something. Woo hoo!)

Yep, I agree ... that'll teach me, not reading the first line of edd's post (where he *defines* 'acceleration', and by that definition it does not have dimensions of LT^-2).

Now if MM is reading this, how do you define 'pressure' (again, if you please)?

 

[Mister Earl]

That's something I'm familiar with, the concept of which anyway. Back when I was in my teen years I was lucky enough to be gifted Stephen Hawking's book, "A brief history of time". Light cones were talked about in that book.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you honestly think that they'd forgive my mathematical mistakes as easily as they forgive yours? Hey, we're all human.

You're safe, Michael. You can't make a mathematical mistake since you aren't qualified to do math and therefore never touch the stuff.

​

 

[GeeMack]

The only liar here is you and you're only lying to yourself GM. Your dark entities are entirely impotent in the lab and your whole argument is founded on a non-sequitur fallacy. Your dark entities aren't real. They don't have any more effect on me than Zeus. No amount of "sky pointing math" is going to make your mythical sky entities real, or make them show up in a lab or have any effect on anything in a controlled experiment. Your entities are mythical. They are not real. EM fields are real. They do real things, like make your car run and make your computer function. Your dark stuff is a figment of your lying imagination.

Dark energy, according to contemporary best explanation theory, is the name of the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe. So for you to claim it doesn't do anything is a lie if you understand the theory, and an argument from ignorance if you don't.

Oh, and how are you coming on that simple answer to that simple question you keep ignoring? Were your heroes Bruce, Birkeland, and Alfvén liars, too?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Were your heroes Bruce, Birkeland, and Alfvén liars, too?

I doubt very much that Mozina is capable of understanding them well enough to be able to answer that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you honestly think that they'd forgive my mathematical mistakes as easily as they forgive yours?

It's not your ignorance which is hard to forgive, but your arrogance, dishonesty, and consistent refusal to actually do anything about your ignorance. I've never before seen a poster so intent on not learning.

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? XI

Where do I buy something tangible that runs on "cosmological negative pressure" or 'dark energy' Tim?

Who cares? The question has nothing to do with anything we are talking about anyway.

Dark energy is as impotent in the lab as any pantheon god. EM fields aren't shy around the lab. That's the empirical difference ...

Well, not really ...

The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. [size=+2]There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation[/size], but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​

Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. [size=+1]Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?[/size]

So when are you finally going to drum up the personal fortitude to face the music, admit the truth, lay it on the line, 'fess up and simply admit the obvious?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Who cares? The question has nothing to do with anything we are talking about anyway.

Sure it does Tim. If your entity/energy thingy did anything useful here on Earth we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since your entity is nothing but a 'sky entity' for lack of a better term, you have a serious empirical problem. Your entity is at least as impotent here on Earth as any sky deity in any religion.

The fact you refuse to acknowledge this flaw in your religion makes you a bit of a "fundy" too by the way.

So when are you finally going to drum up the personal fortitude to face the music, admit the truth, lay it on the line, 'fess up and simply admit the obvious?

The only thing that's obvious is that your sky deity is *AT LEAST* as impotent on Earth as any sky deity we could "name". It's also obvious that your whole belief system revolves around a non-sequitur fallacy: "Acceleration happens, therefore (name your generic metaphysical sky deity) did it." There is no empirical cause effect relationship between acceleration and "dark evil energy'. The is no such thing as "dark energy", just "dark human ignorance". That's what is obvious Tim.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You're safe, Michael. You can't make a mathematical mistake since you aren't qualified to do math and therefore never touch the stuff.

​

Yes!

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not your ignorance which is hard to forgive, but your arrogance, dishonesty, and consistent refusal to actually do anything about your ignorance. I've never before seen a poster so intent on not learning.

The problem Zig is that you evidently have nothing to "teach" me other than another "sky religion" you've created. Your dark entities, like all sky deities, utterly and completely fail to manifest inside of a real experiment in the lab. They only show up in your "sky religion". They have no effect on human experiments. They have no effect on events even inside the solar system for that matter. They only seem to have some 'magical' effect "somewhere out there" in space where humans could never hope to reach.

I've come to realize that you don't know squat about physics as that whole Casimir debate clearly demonstrated. You don't have the common decency to even pick a valid argument that isn't self conflicted. On one hand you all claimed that the Casimir effect was an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum". That effect is directly related to the EM field as the type of material demonstrates. You then turn right around and attempt to dismiss the EM field from consideration claiming that it is incapable of creating "negative pressure". The whole argument is baloney or you wouldn't be trying to have your cake and eat it too! You can't claim on one hand that it's incapable of creating "negative pressure" and then claim it's also an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum"! Holy cow. That's as self conflicted as it gets Zig. What can I say. All you've "taught me" is that you know absolutely nothing about subatomic physics and kinetic energy.

The actual flaws in your arguments are always physical in nature. A ZERO pressure is the lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum. Two objects might 'attract' in a pure vacuum, but that is called "gravitational attraction', or "charge attraction" and it's not an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum.". You're also all peddling what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and not a single one of you can explain what is physically (not mathematically, physically) unique about "magnetic reconnection". Your dark stuff is a complete no show in the lab. Every single one of your problems has absolutely nothing to do with math and yet you keep harping on the math like it's your "savior". That's not your problem so math can't save you.